[critical] The anti-Semitic

A woman with cancer and seeing that dying request to her husband that he might psychoanalyze by a psy a jew in order to cure his anti-semitism. The encounter between these two characters will give rise to a sort of comical situation.

Author’s Note

[rating:1/10]

• Release Date : coming Soon

• Directed by Dieudonné

• Film French , iranian

• With Dieudonné

• Duration : 1h35min

• Trailer :

Very popular in the 90s as a comedian with his partner of scene Elie, Dieudonné would have been able to spin the happy days continue quietly in the same register which assured him a certain material comfort, without any risk-taking or questioning. It would have even been able to finish in a pub SFR. The top of the recognition in the trade, all in all, if we judge by all the “celebrities” on the back that line up to appear in the pubs LCL. At the same time, he also makes his film debut by appearing in rapid succession in Didier, the move and The clone (by chronological order but also by descending order of quality…)

The son of a Cameroonian, he undertakes to defend the cause of Blacks, arguing (not without reason) that all of the suffering must be recalled, and that, as we commemorate the Shoah, we should do the same for the victims of slavery and “the slave trade”. Flanked by this noble cause, it will push the idea of more/too far away (delete whichever does not apply), claiming that if the atrocities committed on the Blacks are so often silenced, it is because those committed on the Jews too much. He then makes the famous sketch of the “rabbi fascist” in an issue of Fogiel who will put it under the ban of the show-biz. Amused, or pissed off, by the reactions outrageous that followed, always arguing that we can make fun of Blacks but not Jews, Dieudonné is radicalisera seeking to become the most infréquentable actors, fricotant with The Pen, the deniers or the iranian president. Without always sharing their ideas but in order to see journalists do their virgin maids.

The least we can say is that it works, since it was never reviewed in a tv studio and that the municipal by-laws come for the ban to play his shows. He is reduced to playing almost entirely in the theater of the Hand of gold, of which he is the owner. Not having abandoned his hopes for the film, he undertakes, always in the mind of self, to achieve “a movie in eight days and with a budget of less than 100,000 euros”, that will be visible only to the Hand of gold. Following a first presentation of the film, the LICRA calls for the prohibition of its dissemination, a request that will be refused by the judge, particularly because of “its aspect of parody”.

It is therefore the aura of a small reputation as a film banned, which copies are exchanged under the cloak, that one discovers this film. In addition, the judgment should absolve us from any accusation of nazism for the simple fact of having seen the film. It is better to get an idea by yourself, as I have been able to do it for shows where we realize, far from the hustle and bustle in the media, which often presents as incentives to racial hatred, that Dieudonné is an excellent actor and that he plays so much on all the religions or about Africa than Israel.

The film sees him interpret an anti-semite who seeks health care. This was a good opportunity to twist permanently the neck of all these accusations and deliver a joke on the theme of “we can laugh of everything,” demonstrating to all the world the difference between an anti-semitic and anti-zionist (which he claims to be and that is not illegal). Las, film aggravates “the case Dieudo”, explains nothing, is content to lazily slip into the provocations and feels furiously warmed up: the opening scene mocks the liberation of the camps in implying that this was not so serious as some would have us believe, we tightens Faurisson, etc… To hide the lack of means, everything is shown in the easy process of the making of the film in the film. Not necessarily a bad idea in and of itself (The car keys, Baffie, unjustly forgotten, knew how to be funny with the same structure), but here we quickly realize that this serves to hide the amateurism-general of the project. It is not written, poorly played, poorly filmed and never funny. One comes to wish that a judge would prohibit it, not for the denial of the holocaust, of gas chambers, but to denial of the holocaust of cinema: it requires a belief that the spectator has not seen any film before for daring to show him a similar dung.

I put 1/10 when the same (or a yellow star, it is according to…) for the game of Dieudonné who, like all great, knows how to laugh with a facial expression, a look. But it is more visible on stage here, as Gad Elmaleh had already shown with Darling: what may be funny in a sketch of 3 minutes is much less in a movie of 1h30.